Skip to content

· Public charity

Montana Shares Inc

A partnership of nonprofit groups devoted to improving the quality of life throughout Montana.

$128k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$28k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Animals$290kFood & Nutrition$122kCommunity Improvement$106kHealth$59kEnvironment$27kPublic Benefit$18kYouth Development$16kPhilanthropy$16kOther$0
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $56,302, the rows itemized in this filing. The $127,600 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $71,298 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $44k
$15,732
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LEWIS & CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY$28,289
MONTANA SHARES$15,732
MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK$6,828
MONTANA FREE PRESS$5,453
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%MONTANA SHARES: $20k → 9%MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK INC: $29k → 9%HEART OF THE VALLEY INC: $6k → 10%GREAT FALLS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK INC: $8k → 14%PRIDE FOUNDATION: $6k → 9%Montana Shares Inc: $20k → 9%MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK INC: $18k → 9%HEART OF THE VALLEY INC: $5k → 10%Montana Shares Inc: $19k → 9%Montana Food Bank Network: $17k → 9%MONTANA SHARES INC: $17k → 9%MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK: $15k → 9%MONTANA SHARES: $16k → 9%MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK: $15k → 9%MONTANA SHARES INC: $15k → 9%Montana Food Bank Network: $13k → 9%MONTANA SHARES: $15k → 9%MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK: $7k → 9%MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $7k → 9%ANIMEALS: $7k → 9%MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $7k → 9%ANIMEALS: $6k → 9%MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $7k → 9%ANIMEALS: $6k → 9%BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTANA: $5k → 9%ANIMEALS: $6k → 9%Montana Wilderness Association: $5k → 9%ANIMEALS: $5k → 9%BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTANA: $5k → 9%CAMP MAK-A-DREAM: $12k → 9%Montana Legal Services Association: $5k → 9%CAMP MAK-A-DREAM: $7k → 9%DISABILITY RIGHTS MONTANA: $5k → 9%CAMP MAK-A-DREAM: $6k → 9%MONTANS SUPPORTING MILITARY: $5k → 9%BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTANA: $5k → 9%LEWIS & CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY: $45k → 9%LEWIS AND CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $36k → 9%Lewis & Clark Humane Society Inc: $31k → 9%Lewis & Clark Humane Society: $30k → 9%LEWIS & CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY: $29k → 9%LEWIS & CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY: $28k → 9%LEWIS AND CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $28k → 9%MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $6k → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$634k · 11 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +62% since the first grant, against +52% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
5

Total granted

$634k
$29k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
+52%

Still filing today

91%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
AnimalsFood & NutritionEnvironmentRecreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentHealthOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • LA
    LEWIS AND CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY
    7× · 2017–2024 · $228k · revenue +62%
  • MF
    MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $114k · revenue +112%
  • NM
    NAMI MONTANA
    5× · 2018–2022 · $33k · revenue +133%

Funded once

  • GF
    GREAT FALLS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $8k · revenue +45%
  • MW
    MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $6k · revenue +52%
  • BA
    Boys and Girls Club of Missoula Countygraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +235%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Montana Medical Association

To serve its members as an advocate for the medical profession, quality patient care and the health of all montana citizens.

—
2
Scenic Montana Trails
—
3
Montanas Outdoor Legacy Foundation

To collectively serve as a catalyst for engagement and bonding of people to our wildlife and public lands in montana through a sense of place, education, access, research and stewardship.

Environment
4
The Montana Land Reliance

The mission of the montana land reliance (mlr) is to partner with landowners to provide permanent protection for private lands that are significant for agricultural production, fish and wildlife habitat, and open space.

Environment
5
Montana State Parks Foundation

The montana state parks foundation raises private support to enhance the visitors experience and build advocates for montanas state parks and recreation heritage.

Recreation & Sports
6
Wild Montana Action Fund

Wild montana action fund builds the political power necessary for protecting and conserving public lands and wild places across the state by elevating the voices of montanans who cherish our outdoor way of life.

Environment
7
Montana Association of Conservation Districts

To heighten the public's awareness of conservation districts and their activities as well as to promote soil and water conservation.

—
8
Montana Healthcare Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Montana Policy Action Inc

To promote public policy solutions that provide increased access to economic opportunities, greater individual freedoms and encourage greater participation in public matters by providing research and recommendation on public policy

Social Science
10
Beaverhead Animal Shelter

The mission is to protect and care for homeless animals in the Dillon and Beaverhead county area.

Animals
11
Montana Budget and Policy Center

To advance responsible tax, budget, and economic policies through credible research and analysis in order to promote opportunity and fairness for all Montanans.

Public Benefit
12
Montana Chamber of Commerce

To create and sustain an optimal business climate, business prosperity and a strong montana economy through advocacy, education and collaboration, working to provide an empowered and educated workforce, reduce business growth obstacles,…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana Legal Services Association; the most unlike its peers is Boys and Girls Club of Missoula County. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 18 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
13/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LEWIS AND CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY: $227,701 · AnimalsLEWIS AND CLARK HUMANE SOCIETYANIMEALS: $29,691 · AnimalsANIMEALSMONTANA SPAY-NEUTER TASK FORCE: $15,389 · AnimalsHEART OF THE VALLEY INC: $11,577 · Animals+1 more: $5,602 · AnimalsMONTANA SHARES INC: $121,676 · OtherMONTANA SHARES INCMONTANA SUPPORTING SOLDIERS: $17,567 · OtherMONTANA SUPPORTING SOLDIERSBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF CENTRAL MONTANA: $10,786 · OtherBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF C…GREAT FALLS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK INC: $7,944 · Other+3 more: $16,077 · Other+3 moreMONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK INC: $113,733 · Food & NutritionMONTANA FOOD BANK N…NAMI MONTANA: $33,226 · HealthMONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $26,871 · EnvironmentCHILDRENS ONCOLOGY CAMP FOUNDATION: $25,300 · Recreation & SportsThe Pride Foundation: $6,138 · Civil RightsDISABILITY RIGHTS MONTANA: $5,156 · Civil Rights
Animals$289,960Other$174,050Food & Nutrition$113,733Health$33,226Environment$26,871Recreation & Sports$25,300Civil Rights$11,294

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLEWIS AND CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY: $227,701 over 7y, 5.1% of budgetMONTANA SHARES INC: $121,676 over 7y, 7.2% of budgetMONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK INC: $113,733 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetNAMI MONTANA: $33,226 over 5y, 2.7% of budgetANIMEALS: $29,691 over 5y, 1.5% of budgetMONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $26,871 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetCHILDRENS ONCOLOGY CAMP FOUNDATION: $25,300 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetMONTANA SPAY-NEUTER TASK FORCE: $15,389 over 3y, 15% of budgetHEART OF THE VALLEY INC: $11,577 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF CENTRAL MONTANA: $10,786 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetGREAT FALLS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK INC: $7,944 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetThe Pride Foundation: $6,138 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $5,602 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetMONTANA FREE PRESS: $5,453 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of Missoula County: $5,349 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetMONTANA LEGAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION: $5,275 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDISABILITY RIGHTS MONTANA: $5,156 over 1y, 0.3% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

First Interstate BancSystem Foundation IncMT24.4× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Montana Community Foundation Inc · Sample Foundation Inc · The Kendeda Fund · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · M J Murdock Charitable Trust · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Network for Good · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Montana Shares Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Montana Shares Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 18 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $57k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Montana Shares’ filings →

    More from the funding graph